Saturday, 30 May 2009

Turks warn US over Cyprus oil search

Below is a report from yesterday's eKathimerini on the Turks getting their knickers in a twist over oil exploration off the Cypriot coast. In a smart move, the Cyprus government is getting the Americans involved in the search for gas and oil deposits in our territorial waters; deposits that are thought to be worth up to $400bn. The Turks have responded in their usual belligerent fashion, though, of course, it is harder for the Turks to intimidate the Americans than the Norwegians, Dutch or British, all of whom have companies interested in Cypriot oil and gas.

Nevertheless, it remains to be seen whether the Turks exploit the 'special relationship' Obama is keen to develop with them to pressure Washington to lean on US oil exploration companies to pull out of Cyprus. And just to follow on what I was saying in my previous post on the Greek Greens and their lack of patriotism compared to their Cypriot counterparts; I noticed on last night's RIK news that the Cypriot Greens have urged the Christofias' government to respond to the Turkish threats to prevent exploration by asking Athens to send the Hellenic navy to defend Cyprus' territorial waters. A good call, but I can't see it happening.

For more details on story, read this article in Greek.

For most up-to-date details on Cyprus’ exploration for natural resources, go here.

US bid for Cyprus oil irks Turks
The announcement by the US ambassador in Nicosia this week regarding the launch of oil and gas exploration off the coast of Cyprus by an American firm has sparked an angry response from Turkish officials and, in turn, stern words from authorities in Nicosia.

Responding to comments by Ambassador to Cyprus Frank Urbancic on Tuesday, Turkish officials were quoted in Turkey’s daily Hurriyet yesterday as saying, 'Our fleet is there – we cannot allow this to happen even if it is a US company.' The comments came after Urbancic revealed that an American company was preparing to prospect for oil off the divided island. 'US investments in Cyprus amount to more than $379 million. This figure will soon increase substantially as an American energy firm begins exploring for oil and gas off Cyprus’s southwest coast,' Urbancic was quoted as saying in Turkey’s Zaman newspaper. The company was not named but is believed to be a big player in the oil and gas market to be trying to access oil deposits at a depth of more than 2,500 meters below sea level.

Officials in Nicosia yesterday sought to put the Turks in their place. 'The mineral wealth belongs to the Republic of Cyprus and no one else,' said Cypriot Minister of Commerce, Industry and Tourism Antonis Paschalidis. 'If the Cyprus problem was solved tomorrow, the Turkish Cypriots would also be in a position to benefit,' Paschalidis added.

Meanwhile, diplomats in Athens noted that any attempt by Turkey to obstruct the scheduled exploration by the US firm would provoke a face-off with Washington and would create problems for the launch of talks between officials in Brussels and European Union candidate Turkey on the energy sector.

Turkey has actively opposed oil exploration off Cyprus since authorities in Nicosia expressed their intention to exploit the island’s underwater mineral wealth two years ago. In December, Cypriot Foreign Minister Markos Kyprianou said that a dispute over offshore oil exploration was damaging Turkey’s efforts to join the EU. Nicosia has accused Turkey of harassing hydrocarbon research vessels four times since November 13.


lastgreek said...

Yes, the story appears as well on the Turkish website It's the online edition of Turkey's English-only newspapaper Today's Zaman.

I got a laugh out of it because in the article they refer to the Cypriot government of the Republic of Cyprus as the "Greek Cypriot administration in southern Cyprus."

I posted the correction on the site. However, it must be approved by their editorial staff in order for it to be published. Let's say I'm not holding my breath...

lastgreek said...

Edit: "www.todayszaman" for "www.todayszamam"

Anonymous said...

The American, will ignore the turks. They ignore everybody in any case; including us.

john akritas said...

Yes, since Turkey doesn't recognise the Republic of Cyprus, it refers to us as the Greek Cypriot administration blah, blah, blah. In the event that US firms do start oil exploration off Cyprus, I find it hard to believe that the Turk navy will confront American vessels – though it would be ironic since, of course, Turk ships and submarines are predominantly American supplied. More likely, the Turks will invoke the 'special relationship' to try and get the US firms to pull out – though the announcement that US firms were shortly to start exploration did not come from our side, but from the US ambassador in Nicosia – so presumably the Americans have weighed up the consequences of being involved in Cypriot oil.

lastgreek said...

For the record, the Turkish site published my comment. I'm cool... :)

If anyone is interested there is an Op-Ed by ÖZDEM SANBERK, a retired Turkish ambassador, titled "We must not let political blindness triumph in Cyprus again." From their search engine, type "Cyprus" and you'll find the article. A few Greeks have already posted their comments on the site.

Anonymous said...

The status quo will remain. It suits everyone's geopolitical interests. It fits perfectly with turkish designs, they have got what they want which is a slice of Cyrpus, to use as a bridgehead to future turkic expansion. This expansion need not be militarily. Cyprus, like Greece , is being bludgeoned to death thorugh unrelenting mass invasion from the muslim east. Cyprus is an inert corpse, a fertile ground for double dealing, drugs traffic, human traffic, casinos and prostitution . The Greek government, vassals and lackey of the EU don't want to have anything to do which will entangle them with the muslims. The Americans have it their way, a divided island, incapable of coherent action, a turkey appeased and firmly held on a leash and an emaciated and impotent Greek administration that lifts her skirt and gets shafted by whomsoever eyes her. The American hegemon will do and act as it pleases. If the turks prove neetlesome, a few bombs in Mesrin will make them shut their big mouths. The Isrealeis will be be the main actors to profit from this oil exploration and exploitation. With the US rotweiler on the loose in the eastern mediterranean, the turkish sultans will have to watch their step. The turks can threaten anyone in the region and get away with it, but as soon as as they cross the drawn line on the sand and begin to be a nuisance to the israelis, they will have their heads chopped off. The turks are power hungry and megalomaniac. Very dangerous customers for the tolerant Greeks, who have no army to speak of and a navy that is more busy rescuing shipwrecked invaders than patrolling the sea lanes .

Anonymous said...

It appears that Turkey seems to think it's EEZ extends almost up to the Egyptian coastline!

Anonymous said...



By Nicos A. Rolandis

When You Cast Your Vote, Remember The Dove Whose Feathers We Have Clipped

The mere recording of the proposals we had over the years for the solution of our problem and the negative outcome (we rejected all of them) causes sheer awe. I set out the various instances with no comment.
1) 1948 Consultative Assembly. We rejected it
2) 1955-56 Harding proposals. We rejected them
3) 1956 Ratcliffe Constitution. We rejected it
4) 1958 Macmillan Plan. We rejected it
5) 1959-60 Zurich-London Agreements, We rejected them İn 1963 (through the efforts to amend the Constitution) although we initially accepted them.
6) 1964 Acheson Plan. We rejected it
7) 1972 Agreement of Clerides-Denktash. We rejected it
8) 1975 Bicommunal Arrangement. We rejected it
9) 1978 Anglo-American Canadian Plan. We rejected it
10) 1981 Evaluation of Waldheim. We rejected it
11) 1983 Indicators of Cuellar. We rejected them
12) 1985-86 Consolidated Documents of Cuellar. We rejected them
13) 1992 Set of Ideas, Ghali. We rejected them in 1993
14) 1997 Annan's Proposals at Troutbeck-Glion. They could not go through
15) 2002-2004 Annan Plan. We rejected it.
Nicos A. Rolandis

john akritas said...

Only a complete idiot takes anything Nicos Rolandis says seriously. Of course, Greek Cypriots have rejected British colonialist designs and plans that satisfy Turkish ambitions to partition our island. Long may this continue.

Anonymous said...

Partition of our island. This is a little understatement don’t you think? Now South of the Island is occupied by Greeks from Greece, British, Russians, Lebanese, Bulgarians, Kurds, and lot more. How can you talk about Partition?
I respect your patriotism and may I say, you are entitle to it. Lets s say Nicos A. Rolandis is wrong for the past and look closer to 2004.
“NO” to Annan Plan has to be more idiotic in my opinion. This can only be work of ultra Nationalist and strong Eoka supporter. “ NO” was blessing in the sky’s for Turkish Cypriots. Annan plan was opportunity lost for Greek Cypriots. This was more suitable and lot more to gain to Greek Cypriots and their prime wish of Enosis than anything might be remotely close or ever will be.
Only plus for Turkish Cypriots was going to be, left alone to deal in there own side. I realise by reading your blog you and your blog friends are very against for peaceful solution. You’re happy the way things are and don’t like it to change. One day this will turn around and bite Greek Cypriots if it hasn’t already started. EU will never be able to do your dirty work by slapping Turkey around. Turkey doesn’t need EU. I agree the fact they doing everything to get in but, is it feasible? is it logic for their sake? In my opinion it isn’t.
Carrying around old suitcase with lots of old wears for many years will be big asked of any nation or any one. Why don’t you all see the logic in just clearing up and moving on? Or is it like the old Jewish joke I heard other day. I thought it was funny I shear with patriotic new friends…

Without prejudice.
How do you start an argument with a Jew? Just close him in a empty room by him self… He will argue with him self. Without prejudice.

john akritas said...

What a load of incoherent, ignorant nonsense.

It's clear you don't have a clue about Cyprus. Keep reading my blog and you might find out the facts and the truth.

Anonymous said...

“It takes two to tango.”
Dearest John Akritas,
I must admit I laughed a little when I read your response as it’s particularly atypical of person blinded by patriotism and blinkered with a one-sided opinion.
I read your blog in true interest to search for interesting and intellectually stimulating content but I found it impossible with its unbalanced and bias point of view. What I have attained from your blog is the saga of the poor Cypriot Greeks and how “The Big Bad Wolf” swallowed all their flock. I am sure you remember the bed time stories your parents or loved ones told you because your prose reflects quite similarly to Greek folklore commonly echoed from parent to child. It also seems as though in the playground of the EU, Cypriot Greeks are kicking the shins of Turkey with hopes of receiving a dangerous and violent reaction in order to persuade their big brothers, France and Germany, that Turkey is not as placid as it may seem on the surface. Ask yourself, how can a country such as Greek Cyprus be accepted into the EU when racist, ethnic and geographic conflict has torn the island to shreds in the last 50 years?

Please, enlighten me, why did Turkey invade Cyprus in 1974? What was the logic behind this “madness”? Surely the Turks didn’t place their men, brothers, husbands, and sons on the frontline for entertainment. I ask you, why is it they only took a third of the island in the fortnight of their crusade, choosing not to erase in entire the opposing population despite being mobilised and ready for combat? I implore you to consider the other side of the story as “it takes two to tango”.
Warmest regards.

john akritas said...

The more you talk about Cyprus, the more ignorant and incoherent you become. I'm not surprised. I'll tolerate your views and terminology for a while, though normally by now I would have carried out my policy of deleting stupid comments about Cyprus. Maybe I'm bored or just feeling charitable. I appreciate you might not be malicious, but sincere in your delusions and susceptibility to official Turkish propaganda.

What do you want to know?

Why Cyprus was allowed in the EU? Because it has a healthy democracy, a prosperous economy and helped shape the Greco-Christian tradition on which European civilisation is based. As for the conflict on the island, this is of Turkey's making and, obviously, Cyprus could not be held hostage in its EU ambitions to Turkey's belligerence and occupation.

Turkey's barbarism on the island in 1974 is well documented, and requires no embellishment from anyone. Turkey's barbarism consisted of massacres, looting, widespread rape and ethnic cleansing. Of course, Turks are incapable of admitting their regular descent into barbarism and prefer instead to accuse their victims of lies or deserving their fate because of some perceived or concocted injustice suffered by Turks.

Cyprus doesn't 'kick the shins' of Turkey. It merely insists that Turkey abide by international law and norms. To describe France and Germany as Cyprus' 'big brothers' is palpable nonsense. The French and Germans have their own reasons for not wanting Turkey in the EU. Cypriots know about Turkey's 'dangerous, violent reactions' and have no desire to suffer from them again.

Why did Turkey invade Cyprus? Turkey invaded Cyprus to fulfil a long-held plan to partition the island – evidenced by the fact that this is what was achieved. You think the Turks invaded the island with no plan or a plan that had been concocted overnight? Of course not. Turkey's aim of partitioning Cyprus went back to the 1950s and the idea of invading to implement this plan was around since the early 1960s. Why did Turkey want to partition Cyprus? To fulfil the logic of Turkish nationalism, which is shaped by paranoia and humiliation, i.e. to recapture land once part of the Ottoman empire it felt it had unfairly lost; and to prevent itself, in its sick worldview, from being 'surrounded' by Greek islands.

Why didn't Turkey take the whole island? It could have done and there were many – like Denktash – who wanted to; but it's one thing rounding up 200,000 people in the north of the island and deporting them to another part of the island, and another thing throwing half a million Greeks off the island altogether, and presumably massacring those who resisted. Of course, the Turks were capable, morally and militarily, of seizing all of Cyprus and all this entailed, but taking half the island was as far as the powers that be – most notably, the USA – would let you go.

Prometheus said...


are these:

enough UN resolutions for you to see who violated international laws, human rights, etc?

Also, when you say:

"Annan plan was opportunity lost for Greek Cypriots."

do you want to tell us why, or do you want to just insist on empty rhetoric?

- One thing you don't understand is that, good or bad the Annan plan (bad, i think), at least the Greeks of Cyprus get to choose. Unlike the Turks of Cyprus, who don't even have real elections.

- Another thing you don't understand is that T/C are a minority, and in a democracy, even though minorities are respected, minorities cannot rule [in lieu of a future solution].

- Finally, many G/C neither buy the "Cypriot people" [G/C and T/C "brothers"] nonsense, nor they want a unification solution, which will involve a turkish minority telling them what to do.

This is not for "racist" reasons (= nonsense) as you say, but for historical and fairness reasons.

Who told you the G/C don't want a peacefull solution? They do, it's just they want a fair solution too. Just because they said NO to an unfair solution, you infer that they don't want a peacefull solution?

These "guilt tricks" just don't work any more. The T/C were not an innocent little group that received protection. This, in your words, is plain folklore. Another folklore is that the Turks are Europeans. No one believes that, not even Turks. It's all politics, and Cyprus (and Greece) should never allow Turkey's entrance in exchange for a solution.

Of course, one has to have a sense of real-politik, and understand that the Europeans might admit Turkey in the EU, again, for politcs, etc. That doens; make it any more right, though. It might have future irreparable consequences for the Europeans.

lastgreek said...

Duh! anonymous Turk, the overwhelming majority of Cypriots voted against the Annan Plan because they didn't particularly care to ratify ethnic cleansing and partition. Duh!

Anonymous said...

John Akritas, I will keep my manors at bay, please try to be a gentlemen and do not be insulting. It’s unnecessary.
I haven’t had the time until today to look at your so called self created educational answer to me. Re “Why Turkey invade Cyprus and others questions”

Seems you don’t like any one to challenge your thoughts. I am wondering why you can’t be more neutral and talk the issue instead, and don’t bend the truth to suit your coze.

I will keep it very simple so you will find in your chartable hart to tolerate my ignorance as you say.

Below information is from another G/C blog. I purposely chose this because it’s more simpler than your explanation of 1960’s - 1974 which was very creative on you behalf to say the least.

I am not trying to insulting your intelligence but trying to see things clearer.

Greek Cypriot case:

THEY fought in 1955-59 for union with Greece, a venerable and sacred right. In 1960, they were compelled to veer to independence, which however was not just and balanced. So, they endeavoured to make the necessary corrections in 1963, keeping alive, in parallel, their irrepressible desire for union with Greece. In the meantime the Turkish Cypriots kept undermining the Cyprus Republic and they revolted in 1963. Later on, the treacherous junta came to power in Greece. It destabilised Makarios and together with EOKA B carried out the coup in 1974. Turkey invaded and brought havoc to Cyprus, to this day occupying 28 per cent of the territory of the Republic. The various Plans of the United Nations cannot be accepted because they do not safeguard in a just way the rights of the Greek Cypriots. The Turkish Cypriots and Turkey are to blame for whatever goes wrong in Cyprus.

Turkish Cypriot case:

THE Greek Cypriots fought in 1955-59 for union with Greece, ignoring the rights of the Turkish Cypriots. Eventually the Republic of Cyprus was established, which the Greek Cypriots incessantly undermined. In 1963, Makarios tried to destroy the constitutional order. In the 1960s the Turkish Cypriots were forced to live in enclaves and the Greek Cypriots were aiming at their annihilation. In 1974 the Greek Cypriots and the Greek Junta tried to achieve union with Greece through the coup d’?tat. Turkey intervened to save the Turkish Cypriots but still many of them perished.. Because of the above, the Turkish Cypriots believe that the two communities must live apart under a very loose federation. The Greek Cypriots and Greece are to blame for whatever goes wrong in Cyprus.
Over the weekend I will write to your blog more and answers to your blog friends too.

Regards from Efendi, to you.

john akritas said...

Don't be insulted if I tell you that you are ignorant about Cyprus. It is a simple statement of fact.

And what do you think? That I've never heard the so-called 'Turkish Cypriot case' as you present it before? I know it, and it's rubbish. In fact, it's not a 'case' at all; but propaganda, delusion and downright falsehood.

Think on this: 'A lie ain't a side of the story. It's just a lie.' (Terry Hanning: The Wire).

Here's a more accurate depiction of what the Turks and Turkish Cypriots were about in the 1950s and 1960s. Turkish Cypriot extremists, encouraged by the British colonial authorities and Turkey, began a political and terrorist campaign to thwart the democratic demand of the majority Greek population for decolonisation and self-determination. These TC extremists demanded either that the whole of Cyprus be given to Turkey or that the island be partitioned along ethnic lines. Greek Cypriots were forced in 1960 to accept an unworkable constitution, which Turkish Cypriots took every opportunity to exploit and undermine. The Turkish plan was to create conflict and tension on the island and prompt Turkey to invade to partition the island. As part of the plan to prepare the way for partition, Turkey financed, trained, organised and supplied the terrorist gang, TMT, which corralled Turkish Cypriots into armed enclaves, and also ruthlessly pursued the 'From Turk to Turk' campaign, aimed at cutting all TC social, political and economic ties with Greek Cypriots. TMT showed no compunction in murdering leftist TCs who argued for peaceful coexistence with GCs. Intercommunal clashes in 1963 and 1967 took Turkey to the brink of invasion, but, largely at the insistence of the USA, Turkey baulked on both occasions. After 1967, the Turkish Cypriot nationalist leadership, despairing that Turkey would ever enforce partition, returned to the table to negotiate revisions to the 1960 constitution. Turkish Cypriots displaced by the fighting in '63 and '67 began to return to their villages. Intercommunal violence petered out – and then, indeed, in 1974, as we all know, EOKA B and the junta, with the support of the Americans, overthrew Makarios to try and impose some kind of double enosis on the island – Cyprus would be divided between Greece and Turkey – except Makarios wasn't killed – and therefore remained Cyprus' legitimate president – Greek Cypriots resisted the coup, the junta was double-crossed by the Americans, and Turkey seized its chance to impose partition on its own terms.

These are the basic facts of the Cyprus issue. Everything else is ignorance or malice.

Anonymous said...

John Akritas
I will not continue this debate as it seems as though I was thinking far too wishfully that a leopard can change its spots.

I could dissect your comments once again, however, from what I’ve learned about you this past few days is that you are so set in your ways, so unmovable, it’s really no longer worth my time to try and convince you and your comrades that life is a two way street.

Offering pages upon pages from biased sources proves to me the wool has been securely fastened over your eyes whether it be by your parents, your education or your general origins and with that I say good luck to you – you seem to be successful in what you do however, I feel the world is far worse with another racist born, living and breathing. Don’t take me wrong, this is no death wish, as death is not reversible (this is probably why such heated debate still continues today about this beloved conflict which you seem to be enthralled in) however, I still have hope that one day the fish scales might fall from your eyes, and your racist blinkers can be reversed.

My friend, I pity you – your inability to evaluate what is plain to see disturbs me greatly as a poisoned tree can only bear poisoned fruit. In a world full of conflict, we have quickly come to see that the root of all evil is racism. I choose not to be as unmovable as you choose to be towards the TC, and I have persevered with as much courtesy I can muster, one educated person to another but I cannot allow you to continue if you spreading such hateful messages, laden in sheer racism, drenched in the blood of both Greeks and Turks.
I sincerely hope I am not the first to challenge your beliefs, nor do I hope I will be the last. Your concreted feet will soon start to smell but no one will be there to jack-hammer you out except your ego and undying love for Enosis.

Despite the fact that the leopard cannot change his spots, remember “A man is but the product of his thoughts. What he thinks, he becomes.” Ghandi. It’s your choice to bring peace to Cyprus – either you continue to point the finger of blame or you accept what is plain to see, open your eyes, mind, body and soul to the truth and you will find that peace begins with the individual. Don’t discount the wisdom of those around you.

john akritas said...

Let's be honest: the reason you you won't 'dissect' my argument is because you cannot. And the reason you're now having a hissy fit is because your preconceptions have been challenged, and so, in typical Turkish fashion, you are now calling me a liar, a racist and so on. How pathetic. I tried my best to show you your ignorance and yet you preferred to resist knowledge. I shouldn't be surprised. I know Turks find it hard to think for themselves and are slaves to official state propaganda.

I'll do you one more favour and refer you to Perry Anderson's essay on Cyprus, which you can find here:

If you want to go further than the simplistic nonsense you admit to preferring and obtain a clearer understanding of what went on in Cyprus, then you might want to read it. Perhaps you will accuse Anderson, too, of being a liar and a racist – strong charges to make against one of the UK's foremost left-wing intellectuals.

Having presented the truth to you and pointed you in the right direction, no one can now accuse me of not trying to release you from your mental slavery. Whether you choose to be liberated or remain a slave is up to you.

lastgreek said...

We now interrupt our regular blog to bring you a hissy fit announcement by Anymous Turk.

--> I will not continue this debate...

--> I could dissect your comments once again [once again? LOL ] . . . it’s really no longer worth my time to try ...

-->My friend, I pity you...

--->. . . the leopard cannot change his spots . . .

Duh! Anonymous Turk, you really must try to get your capacious small head round the concept of democracy: one person one vote. Duh!

Anonymous said...


It's like arguing with a crazy person, except that in Greece's (and Cyprus') case, there are about 70 million or so crazy persons living right next door.

Unfortunately, realpolitik based on perceived "strategic" value has allowed this "crazy person" mindset to flourish in Turkey; it's still a place where "might makes right," and where victims are the ones to blame for gross violations of international law. It's a society not yet capable of self-introspection and criticism, nor of allowing any voices of dissent to be heard (i.e., the infamous Article 301 of the Turkish Penal Code, which has enshrined censorship in the constitution).

Facing this situation, the best thing for Greece and Cyprus is to stop being the victims. They must continue making themselves as strong as they can, militarily, economically, politically, and diplomatically. It will require courage, unity and a firm belief that we, as Hellenes, have a right to exist in peace and prosperity in this world. However, it is a peace that can only come from having real strength and the conviction to use it when required ( like when Turkish F-16s buzz a mere 300 meters above inhabited Greek islands). The anger and outrage of Greeks taking to the streets to protest government corruption and unchecked illegal immigration gives me hope--it shows that the Greeks are angry and still have the will to fight! I pray that the current and future leaders of Greece and Cyprus still have that same fighting spirit--Hellenism is so worthy of it!

I appreciate all your hard work, John--keep fighting the good fight!

Paul in Florida

john akritas said...

Paul: you put it well. I've been listening to Turks for years now on Cyprus, and I have not come across one – not one! – who is prepared to diverge from this line: that Greek Cypriots, as part of their evil design to unite Cyprus with Greece, attacked and massacred Turkish Cypriots and that, with the junta's coup, were now in the process of carrying out a genocide before declaring Enosis, prompting Turkey to intervene and save the TCs and bring peace to the island.

And when you point to a different and more complex scenario, one which reveals the TCs were not victims and that Turkey's Cyprus intentions were malicious, then you are biased, a racist and a liar. What can you do? You are right. You have to stop wasting your breath urging them to think critically, trying to show them a way out of their ignorance, and prepare yourself for the violence and evil, which necessarily emanates from their ignorance. If you want peace, prepare for war, as the Romans use to say.

I should add that it's not only the Turks who believe their own lies and are trapped by their myths; the Skopjans are another bunch of fools Greece has to deal with. Their lies and myths are even more outlandish than the ones the Turks suffer from.

Prometheus said...

Here is a little detail, also, that perhaps our (ignorant) Anonymous friend does not know:

The 3 powers that guaranteed the security of Cyprus and its constitution (GR, GB and T), had also the right to act unilaterally on that matter, according to the Zurich-London agreements.

Therefore, Turkey is using this provision to justify the invasion. BUT, the problem for such lame justification is that this provision to act (even unilaterally) was to restore the status quo, and quarantee the constitution, the ratios of goverment, etc, none of which Turkey did.

So, if one acknowledges the Zurich-London agreements*, something which both Greeks and Turks did, then the Turkish invasion was illegal and unjustified, either way you look at it (and as a consequense of the agreements that were signed).

Anonymous, what do you have to say about this point?
[Or now that you started getting cornered, you dropped the debate?]

*In all honesty, i have to say here that i find the Zurich-London agreements, for Cyprus independence, a big MISTAKE on our part. Especially in lieu of the fact that people were sucrifizing their lives for union (a genuine right of the overwhelming majority of Greeks in the island). If Makarios was under pressure, he should have resigned from "representing" us, anyway he was never elected for that (the elections occured after the establishment of the republic). In essence, i find that Makarios betrayed the cause for union, and the fighters, so that (at least) he would have a state to govern.

[I am not a right-winger (they are too close to the Church), neither left (they are too close to the TC's), but facts are facts. Makarios signing for independence was wrong, but since the Turks accepted it, their invasion in 1974 was wrong too]

john akritas said...

Prom: I've posted previously on the London-Zurich agreements and who was responsible for Makarios signing something he clearly didn't want to sign. Read the post in full here:

Here's the key excerpt:
"Konstantinos Karamanlis exerted strong pressure on Makarios. Observing that Makarios was leaning towards rejecting the agreements, Karamanlis angrily told the Cypriot leader: 'At this point, I'm ending the Cyprus policy of the Greek government. If you want to carry on the struggle [for Enosis], you must look elsewhere for support.' (Στο σημείο αυτό τερματίζω την κυπριακή πολιτική. Αν θέλετε εσείς να συνεχίσετε τον αγώνα, θα πρέπει να αναζητήσετε αλλού συμπαράσταση)."

Maybe Makarios was wrong to buckle under the pressure being exerted on him by Karamanlis and the Greek government, but I don't think you can characterise this as betrayal. Besides, in the period following 'independence', in terms of consolidating the Republic of Cyprus – i.e. consolidating self-determination – of confronting Turkish Cypriot terrorism, the threat of Turkish invasion and keeping off his back the Greek government – which wanted Makarios to accept Anglo-American plans for double enosis/partition; Makarios did well. After the 1967 crisis over Kophinou, the Greek Cypriot position was stronger than in 1960. What went wrong later? The junta came to power in Athens and another kind of junta in Washington – both of which were determined to kill off Cypriot independence, and eventually hired lackeys in Cyprus – i.e. Grivas and EOKA B – to do their dirty work. For me, Makarios – being assailed from all sides, by much, much stronger and ruthless powers – was a tragic and heroic figure. I find little to reproach him for. Perhaps he should have realised how stupid and unpatriotic the junta was or how badly the Americans wanted him dead, and trod more carefully; or perhaps he should have been more ruthless with EOKA B, realised how dangerously crazy those involved in it were.

Prometheus said...


I do agree with most of what you say, and i also acknowledge your knowledge on these issues. [I have seen other posts by you]. No problem there...

I do grant to Makarios his (initial) passion for union, he is the one who raised the issue also. And, by no means i support Eoka B acts, etc. I do not...

Here are a few points, though, that i would like to raise in support of my position from last time:

- S. Venizelos (and Makarios) pushed for enosis in 1951.

- Papagos then(1953) refused to act on enosis, but that didn’t stop Makarios in trying (something which even changed Papagos position later). [p.11-12, O'Malley, Craig]

- In 1956, Karamanlis was for independence (not union), etc. When the first 2 EOKA fighters were hanged, thousands of people protested in Athens, with dead and injured, Karamanlis subjugated the protest, then Makarios could have exploited that, or saw that at least he had the support of the people.
[Karamanlis was a traitor, and he said what you said and other worse things, and I agree with you…]

- Before 1957, the Americans were pushing for division, and double union. [Karamanlis was on board, as the interests changed.] Averof, for example, in 1958 acted for double union, etc. Makarios in 1958, though, coming back from exile said NO to double union and division, and suggested independence. [p. 36, Strigas]

- In 1964, Makarios sent a note to G. Papandreou saying that the Z-L agreements were nonviable. [he didn't see that 4 years ago?]

- G. Papandreou accuses in 1964 Makarios for acting independently. [O Makarios energouse apo monos tou]

- In 1964, Makarios also rejects [and the Papandreous too…later they switched and Senior accepted it] the Acheson Plan which said:

(GIVE A BASE TO NATO (= Americans))


What else did we want? This was a RIDICULOUS act from Makarios !!

No one put a gun on Makarios head to sign the Z-L. He could have said no, or gained time, or continue the fight until things changed, or accept the American plans for division.

The latter was better alternative to an “independence” that did not work, and also it was something that happened anyway, with 200,000 refugees, dead, more land lost, etc. That’s also where we are heading (good, i think...), and it took us years to realize it.

The same position was taken by the French (De Gaul), emphasizing also that the artificial state of Cyprus should not have occurred, as there are only Greeks and Turks, and suggested 2 different solutions.

John, we agree in many things, but my belief is that we probably disagree on one main issue, and that's the solution to the problem. Not only I believe the Acheson was a good opportunity for us, but also i think that division now is the only realistic solution.

[unless, we find a way to preserve our Greek identity in a mixed state, and find a way to make the TC understand that they are the minority, and they should behave as such]

Unlike others, i am not afraid to say it, and i can support that position. My proposal, den einai diladi dixotomisi "tou kafeniou", all a serious proposal. And it has, as its main reason behind it, the preservation of the Greek character (whatever is left) of the (big percentage) of the island.

[Let be clear, it's not a division "as is", but under conditions. They give back Famagusta - they were going to give it anyway - and we recognize their "north state". That way, the land percentages drop to a fair ratio, and we separate as Greeks (that we are) and Turks, and preserve at least our identity].

I am not left nor right, but i living an breathing Greek (or Greek from Cyprus, not "Cypriot").

I know that most people do not even want to hear that (division), and i thank you for allowing all positions to be heard, even ones that became taboo. I am waiting for your comments...

john akritas said...

Naturally, P. I don't accept partition as a solution. It's what we've been fighting against for 50 years and I see no reason to capitulate now. Partition would not just be to hand over to the Turks Kyrenia, Karpasia, the Mesaoria – land that has been Greek for 3,500 years – but it would also spell the end for all of Cypriot Hellenism. Turkey would use a state in the north as a springboard to take over all of the island. We would be at the complete mercy of Turkey. The Turks would bring in settlers by the hundreds of thousands, who would be able, as EU citizens – assuming the 'TRNC' is now in the EU – to settle in the Greek controlled part of Cyprus. We would be finished in two generations. We would suffer what the Serbs suffered in Kosovo. We mustn't delude ourselves that Turkey would be satisfied with 30 percent of Cyprus.

Makarios, I believe, never gave up on enosis. He simply didn't accept the kind of enosis successive Athenian governments had in mind – i.e the double enosis of the Acheson plan, which though, as you say, envisaged handing over Karpasia (and Kasterlorizo) to Turkey – which amounts to some 15 percent of Cyprus, not 2.5 percent as you suggest – also allowed for the creation of semi-autonomous Turkish cantons throughout the rest of Cyprus. The reason Makarios rejected the Acheson plan wasn't just because no Cypriot leader could agree to handing over Karpasia to the Turks; but because, he knew that the next step would be for the Turks to try to unite Turkish-controlled Karpasia with the Turkish cantons in the rest of Cyprus.

Makarios, and nearly all Cypriots, wanted the whole of the island to unite with Greece, not just part of it. And to achieve this, Makarios was prepared to use independence to strengthen Cyprus' position until such time as genuine enosis could be achieved. Crete was autonomous for 16 years, before the Balkan wars provided an opportunity for enosis and complete liberation. This was the path Cyprus was taking and if Greece's political leaders, instead of collaborating with the Turks, the British and the Americans to bring about partition, had supported Makarios' strategy towards enosis, then we would have had union by now.

As for the alternative to a Turkish state in the north, this bizonal, bicommunal nonsense is the only way to go for the moment. We have to reverse the worst effects of the invasion and occupation, and then, in a federal system, seek over time to fuse the Greek and Turkish constituent states, making bizonality and bicommunality irrelevant, so that Greeks dominate the whole island again. In such circumstances, enosis – genuine enosis, encompassing the entire island – would become inevitable.

lastgreek said...

I agree with John, P.---no retreat, no surrender, and NO partition. You don't negotiate away what is rightfully yours, P. NO WAY.

If worse comes to worst, i.e. an escalation of Turkish intransigence on the island of Cyprus, then its war. We have are Greek armed forces: army, navy, and air force. Let's prepare and fight the Mongols. I am not afraid. No Greek should be afraid. Is anyone here afraid? Don't be shy. Speak up!

lastgreek said...

Edit: "then it's war" for "then its war."

The lack of an edit feature will be my bane, John. ;)

lastgreek said...

Edit 2: "our Greek armed forces" for "are..."


Prometheus said...


in your post you mentioned two hypotheticals, which i am not sure how much they could be substantiated (now or then):

1. “Turkey would use a state in the north as a springboard to take over all of the island”.

2. “because, he knew that the next step would be for the Turks to try to unite Turkish-controlled Karpasia with the Turkish cantons in the rest of Cyprus.”

No evidence for those, but also it would have been difficult since the Americans would have guaranteed that, as their plan.

One of the conditions of the Z-L agreements was for the new republic of Cyprus, NEVER to push for enosis…ever. So, the argument that with independence we would have been free to achieve enosis later is invalid.

Enosis for the whole island was problematic, no matter how much I or you wanted it, and even though as a majority we had the right to push for it. That’s the first thing a politician should have tried to maneuver around.

We were basically given the choice between 90% of the island uniting or nothing. Makarios said nothing, do you find that realistic or reasonable?

The Americans wanted partition, the Brits wanted nothing (just to keep the island), then when EOKA and de-colonization wave made things darker for them, they wanted independence. The American and British interests collided on the issue of Cyprus, and because the British won (initially) with independence, that's why we had to suffer later (in 1974), basically from the Americans.

I like the plan you describe in your last paragraph, but I find it a bit difficult to implement. In political reality, as of now, it’s a bit unrealistic. Maybe later things will change, but as of now, we are not the strong one (militarily or diplomatically) to impose (or trick them into) such a plan.
I am with you, though, for the end result (enosis), even though such a view is being mocked as you know by most (“all for money”) politicians and (“misinforming the public”) media.

Lastgreek, "then it's war" ??? With what/how? Are we gonna throw frappe on them? And gyros? I served in the Army (in Greece and Cyprus), i was a sub-lieutenant. Did you serve in the Army Lastgreek?

I will fight if my country needs me (not wants me), but let's be realistic here. The true meaning of heroism for me, is when one knows that will die and still goes, so to make a difference/change.[like Auxentiou, or Leonidas]. This is different than being sucrifized (as a lamb) for political games.

john akritas said...

Do I think it 'reasonable and realistic' to have rejected the Acheson plan? Yes, definitely. There is no question in my mind that the Turks had determined since the 1950s to partition Cyprus from Kokkina (or even Polis Chrysochous) in the west to Ammochostos in the east, and that giving them Karpasia – where I happen to be from, by the way – would only be the first stage in them taking that which they took in 1974; so I don't accept that Acheson was good for us by itself or that it would have, in the medium or long-term, satisfied the Turks – who, it should be remembered, only accepted the first Acheson plan as a basis for discussion, and rejected the second Acheson plan outright. Nor was there any need for Acheson, from a Cypriot point of view. The Americans came up with it to placate the quisling Greek government and Turkey and serve NATO interests in a time of Cold War – having, in their stupidity and paranoia, come to believe that Makarios was Castro in a cassock and an independent Cyprus had the potential to become the Cuba of the Mediterranean.

Makarios' strategy of pursuing independence and subduing the Turkish Cypriot nationalists to the point where they were no longer an obstacle to Greek Cypriots exercising their right to self-determination was working. In the 1960s up to 20 percent of Turkish Cypriots had left the island – for Canada, Australia and the UK – and no doubt they would have continued to leave the island as we gradually exerted democratic control over the state and island and the hopelessness of TMT-inspired self-isolation became even more apparent to them.

Partition would have been a disaster for us then; and it would be even more of a disaster now. I can't prove that if we accept partition the Turks would then use what they have as a springboard to take over the rest of the island, or turn our 70 percent into a Turkish dependency. But it is a fair assumption. A fairer assumption, I believe, than yours: which is that the Americans wouldn't let it happen? Are you sure about that? And, again, I don't understand what benefit it would bring to us to accept a partition on Turkey's terms. That this would protect our Greekness? Can you prove that? And can you prove that we would lose our Greekness in a federation?

Yes: Zurich-London did preclude enosis and partition; but that never stopped anyone – us, Athens, Britain, the US, the Turks – from pursuing that which was forbidden. Enosis could have been achieved at the right time, as in Crete, regardless of what the 1959 constitution said. You know perfectly well that constitutions aren't written in stone and handed down from gods. Men – and circumstances – make them, and men – and circumstances – can change them.

And, finally, I agree: enosis is not on the agenda now and, in many ways, enosis is not even necessary. And the strategy I describe – federation now, followed by fusion of the constituent states over time – is, I believe, a widely held strategy in Cyprus. It's what Tassos Papadopoulos described as 'osmosis'. The trick now is to get such an agreement as to leave open the possibility of 'osmosis' of the constituent states later on. It is not inevitable that osmosis will occur – in fact, more likely is that it won't – but I prefer this option to partition.

Anonymous said...

I shall add nothing more. I shall simply remind you of what the political patriarch of Cyprus, Glafcos Clerides, wrote on the last page (383) of his recent book “Documents of an Era.”

“The postponement of the solution of the Cyprus problem to the remote future will have only one consequence: The recognition of the legal entity of the de facto regime, even without any sovereignty, so that its isolation will be lifted. In such a case the fruitless lapse of time will lead to the solution which Denktas and Turkey were unsuccessfully targeting for 33 years, namely, the partition of Cyprus into two sovereign states.”
Glafcos Clerides

Anonymous said...

Cyprus has been the classic case of a country whose leadership, with some exceptions, was not characterized in recent years by political acumen. Our big ‘feat’ in the past six decades was to break Cyprus up into two parts. Constantinos Karamanlis, then prime minister of Greece, told us in 1978, with a lot of bitterness, at his plain apartment on Herodes Atticus street in Athens: “The Greek Cypriots started a struggle in 1955 for the union of Cyprus with Greece, while the Turks were fighting at the same time for partition. It appears that at the end of the day the Turks will achieve their objective.” Wise words thrown into the vacuum of the irresponsibility that surrounds us.

john akritas said...

Clerides – who I wouldn't describe as the political patriarch of Cyprus; in the end, Tassos Papadopoulos will have a more enduring legacy than Clerides – certainly believed that if we didn't rush to a solution of the Cyprus problem, then the Turkish occupation regime would be recognised; which is why, when he was Cyprus' chief negotiator and president, he made concession after concession to the Turks, to the point where we ended up with the Annan plan, which he vigourously supported.

As for Karamanlis; if the Turks achieve their objectives in Cyprus, then he more than any other Greek will have contributed to their success. The man made a hobby of betraying Cyprus.

john akritas said...

And, anonymous, with respect, you're totally wrong to suppose that it is Greek Cypriot politicians who have lacked political acumen and brought disaster to the island. If we're looking for Greek politicians to blame for the Cyprus tragedy, then they are almost all Greeks from Greece – top of the list being Konstantinos Karamanlis and Evangelos Averoff. The biggest criticism that could be levelled at Cypriot politicians is naivety – naively believing that mother Greece always had Cyprus' best interests at heart and would always protect her if worst came to worst. Thus, Makarios, under pressure from Karamanlis and Averoff signed the disastrous 1959 accords; and Tassos Papadopoulos, on the advice of Simitis and Papandreou, agreed to the Burgenstock process that landed us with the Annan plan.

Prometheus said...


the Turks had no serious claims on Cyprus (unless of course you can provide evidence to the contrary), until after 1951 when Britain brought them into the game, and made it a 3-country problem, instead of a 2-country problem. The Turks gave up their claims on Cyprus with the Treaty of Lausanne.

You also very cleverly bypassed the discrepancy of your argument in defense of Makarios, in your 2 posts, on the following:

First, you said that Makarios plan was that with independence he would have been free to achieve enosis later. Now, you say that YES, the Z-L agreements preclude enosis.

So, do we agree that Makarios was WRONG on that issue? Your line of arguing is/was really "non-sequitur". (it doessn't fly). Do we agree, so we can move on? I respect you, and the point is to analyse each others arguments/thesis, and not to prove one illogical, etc.

Then, i applaude you at least that you said that you can't prove that if we accept partition the Turks would then use what they have as a springboard to take over the rest of the island. It is a fair assumption, as you said. But is not grounded, though. Mine, that the Americans wouldn't let it happen (under the Acheson plan), is also fair, AND grounded. Since you asked, i explain:

The Americans, as the authors of the proposal would have been legally binded to honor it. But, as you correctly said, deals break. But, consider this. The Americans would also have a basis there, in other words interests to protect, so it would be very difficult for them to allow any disturbunce of the status quo. So, my assumtion has a logical basis.

Finally, i am not so much concerned with actual enosis per- se, but as i told you, with more of preserving the Greek character of the Greeks of Cyprus (who, sadly, more and more of them think of themselves as "Cypriots"). That's my basis for division, and since you asked me on how do i understand that as a guarantee that it will preserve our Greekness, i respond simply by:

Would a state with just Greeks guarantee our Greekness? I want to be fair, like you, and say not nessesarily !! Look at Greece, in which by no means the ordinary Neo-Greek orthodox confused hybrid of the (anti-greek) Byzantine era i would consider Greek. But, that's just 1 problem, though [cultural awakening, educational reform, could fix it]. Having the Turks to consider too, though, this is 2 problems. What are going to teach in a history class in a mixed state? How are you going to pursue policies of national interests? Let's be realistic...So, in other words, and again, my argument has a logical/comparative basis.

lastgreek said...

Hi, Prometheus,

If you're wondering whether I can shoot straight, let's just say I can easily blow off a Mongol soldiers's head from a hundred meters away. I have served in the army, P---the Canadian army. (My father served in the Greek army.)

"then it's war" ??? With what/how? Are we gonna throw frappe on them? And gyros?"

I am not crazy about frappe (or any kind of coffee, for that matter), but I love to eat gyro---Mongol gyro, that is!

Three years ago, a few thousand Hezbollah fighters with nothing more than small armaments and lots of courage humiliated the much-vaunted, American-financed, Israeli army. Think about it---a few thousand brave fighters, Prometheus, without tanks, jet fighters, ships, or high-tech weaponry. They made those f--kin' Zionists shit matza balls!. We, however, have all the aforementioned items. All we now need is courage---the courage to stand up to the Mongols and let then know, in no uncertain terms, that the Greeks will not negotiate the GREEK island of Cyprus away and that we are prepared to fight for it if we must. As others have astutely mentioned here, the Mongols only understands strength---they loathe weakness. Well, then, let's tighten our Greek balls and show the Mongols some Greek mettle!


P.S. What can I say, P? My great-grandmother was a Μανιάτισσα. My grandfather was very proud of this. Who knows? Maybe some of this blood has trickled down to me. :)

john akritas said...

You're quite wrong to say that Turkey only woke up to Cyprus in 1951 at the behest of the British. Turkish Cypriot political leaders had begun to systematically agitate against enosis since, at least, 1931 and by the 1940s in Turkey itself the issue of Cyprus had become the favourite topic of Turkish nationalists. And the point is that, with the prospective departure of the British from Cyprus, Lausanne would no longer be applicable and everything was to play for. Turkish nationalism, since the 1930s, regarded Cyprus – and still does – along with Thrace, the Aegean, the Caucasus, northern Iraq – as one of those areas of 'vital territory' for the security of Turkey. The Turks were bitterly disappointed that the Dodecanese had been given to Greece in 1947 and they weren't about to allow the same thing to happen with Cyprus. Fortunately, for them, they had Britain to encourage their claims to Cyprus and a stupid Greek government, which agreed to Britain's suggestion that Turkey be involved in talks on the future of Cyprus, turning Cyprus, as you say, from a bilateral to a trilateral problem.

I don't agree that Makarios was wrong to sign the 1959 agreements. I've said repeatedly that he felt he had no alternative and that his strategy subsequently became to use independence as a stepping stone to enosis, regardless of what the Zurich-London agreements said. Neither the GCs or the TCs viewed those agreements as satisfactory, but were prepared to use them to achieve their preferred option, enosis in our case, taksim (partition) in theirs. Now, you can argue that Makarios should never have signed the Zurich-London agreements or, having signed them, should have stuck by them rigidly, but it is clear – and proved by the amendments he proposed to the constitution in 1963 – that he regarded the agreements as unworkable (especially given the way the TCs interpreted the rights granted to them by the agreements); unfair to the Greek Cypriot side and not set in stone. Agreements in politics are made to be broken – and this applies to Greeks, Turks and Americans, who you have too much faith in. Having faith in America – and particularly the America of the Johnson and Nixon administrations – would not have been good grounds to make assumptions on the future security of Cyprus. What do the Americans care about Cyprus? They have only ever cared about keeping Greece quiet and Turkey on side.

john akritas said...

As for rejecting Acheson, you assume that 1. the Acheson plan was fair and a good solution for Greek Cypriots – it was not; and 2. the Acheson plan would have held – it would not have held. Do you seriously think the Turkish Cypriots in the autonomous zones – which would have included half of Nicosia and the Nicosia to Kyrenia corridor – in the Greek part of the island would not have agitated to unite their autonomous zones with Turkish-controlled Karpasia, i.e. to achieve that which they achieved in 1974. Acheson was never just about giving away Karpasia; it was about accepting the principle of partition and once you do that, then it's just a case of where you draw the line, and the line the Turks wanted to draw was, as I said before, from Kokkina to Ammochostos.

My assumption that Turkey has ambitions to take over or control all of Cyprus is very well grounded. It is based on an understanding of the logic of Turkish nationalism – which regards Cyprus, a former Ottoman possession, as an inherent part of the Turkish world, unfairly taken from it in 1878 by the British, and which also sees the island as vital to Turkey's national security interests – Cyprus as the dagger pointing at Turkey's underbelly – its Kurdish areas and its ports of Mersin and Adana. And here's another thing: since Turkey knows in current conditions it cannot just march into the rest of the Republic of Cyprus and take it over, what is it trying to achieve through negotiations? It's trying to achieve independence in the north and partnership in the south; partnership so that Turkey can have a say in the destiny of the whole of the island and can pressurise and manipulate the Greek controlled part of the island to undermine it and make it subservient to its demands. Do you seriously believe that Cyprus having a border with Turkey - which is what recognition of the 'TRNC' would effectively initiate – would have no economic, security and political implications for the rest of the island? That we would be able to exercise our independence in our part of the island without any regard for being surrounded by Turkey? Why do you think we rejected the Annan plan?

john akritas said...

And just to broaden it out a bit: what do you think the consequences would be in Thrace and the Aegean if Greeks accepted the partition of Cyprus? Don't you think the Turks would see this as a precedent and attempt the same 'solution' with other disputed areas with Greece?

john akritas said...

I should clarify: when I say I don't agree Makarios was wrong to sign the 1959 agreements; I mean I don't agree that by signing them he had killed off enosis. Even after independence, Makarios believed in enosis and continued to pursue it.

Prometheus said...

I would comment more extensively
on your post later, but one thing
really quickly now:

You said:

"Americans, who you have too much faith in"

This i didn't quite like, so i clarify. I DO NOT HAVE FAITH, OR TRUST, IN THE AMERICANS.

I criticized them, and their policies, in public (in articles, etc), quite harshly, even to the point to put myself in trouble.

So, please do NOT assume too much.

(My "faith" in them, on the Acheson Plan, was political (not ethical), knowing how they operate when it comes to their interests, something which unfortunately many of us did not, and do not, and that's why we pay the price until today).

I only understand the logic of their self-interest policies (cynical, and unfair, most of the times), just as you say that you
understand the logic of Turkish nationalism.

Prometheus said...

Also, do not insist on things that
you are obviously wrong:

If you told me that M's signed for independence because that was the second best thing, as union was dead, i understand. But, to say that he signed for independence just so to achieve union later, where at the same time independence precluded union, that's something that doesn't fly.

Then, also, he signed the documents, acknowledging with that that "all is good", so he will come later and demand, not just one, but 13 points to be changed?

Did he even read the documents he was signing? Really....

"Had no alternative", but to sign it? Are you kidding me? Who did he asked if we agree or not? What would have happened if he didn't? [worse than what happened in 1974].

I am sorry but, "i politiki, krinete ek tou apotelesmatos", kai oxi me theories.

M's risked, with his policies, the island being taken over (all of it) by the Turkish invasion in 74, as (and to be honest) it was not really us (our firepower) that stopped the Turks half-way. That was what the American plans dictated, the ones that we were warned about, and ignored subsequently.

[All that, not to be taken as if i don't have my criticism about Grivas acts, etc.]

Hermes said...

Very interesting discussion gentlemen. Keep it up.

Also agree with lastGreek. Hez'Bollah, at least for its fighting capabilities, is an admirable organisation.

john akritas said...

Prom. I still can't see the significance of this point you're making about Makarios signing the Zurich-London agreements. It is obvious that Makarios – and others from our side – thought that the 1959 constitution was not a final solution and that we would continue with our struggle for self-determination/enosis. Turkey and the Turkish Cypriots had the same attitude to Zurich-London – that it was an interim solution that they would use to work towards partition. Thus, no one – maybe only Karamanlis, glad to be rid of the Cyprus problem – who signed Zurich-London believed in these agreements, which wouldn't be the first time this has happened with an international treaty.

And Makarios would have felt that the alternative to signing Zurich-London would have been an imposed partition, as the British had warned. As I pointed out in a previous comment above regarding the Greek government position, Karamanlis had told Makarios in no uncertain terms that if he didn't sign then Greece would no longer support Cyprus. Nevertheless, there were those – Tassos Papadopoulos, Vassos Lyssarides – who advised Makarios not to sign. It should also be stressed that Zurich and London were secretly negotiated between Greece, Turkey and the UK – with no Cypriot input – and this would also have encouraged Greek Cypriots to believe that these treaties didn't reflect their will.

And just to make clear how Makarios continued to believe in enosis and what he thought enosis entailed, this is from a speech he made in 1971 in Yialousa – in Karpasia, which Acheson had offered to Turkey:

'Cyprus is Greek, Cyprus has been Greek since the dawn of its history, and will remain Greek. Greek and undivided we have taken it over. Greek and undivided we shall preserve it. Greek and undivided we shall deliver it to Greece.'

Or what about this in an interview with Le Point in 1973: 'I have struggled for union of Cyprus with Greece, and enosis will be always be my deep national aspiration, as it is the aspiration of all Greek Cypriots. My national creed has never changed and my career as a national leader has shown no inconsistency or contradiction.'

Prometheus said...

LastGreek, the upper estimate for Hezbollah numbers is 10,000 men
(almost equal to our army in CY), others say 5,000, and others put that to 500. No one really knows.

But, i will play along, and accept with you that they are just "a few" of them.

Even if they are few of them (like EOKA), the point is that they are highly motivated, and you said, and i agree, they are defending themselves.

But. let's not be desillusioned. In the recent conflict, unfortunately they "achieved" a total disaster for Lebanon, and almost no casualties for Israel. Did they earn our sympathies? Yes. Who gained out of this? The Israelis. Also, do you really think that in a full out war the Israelis will need more than a few hours to take over all Lebanon?

Nevertheless, Hezbollah is highly motivated. Is our army (Greek + Cypriot) (or people) highly motivated? If the Turks attack, our army might get motivated, but for what you intend it, to re-gain back CY, i don't think they are.

You are daydreaming, if you hink that we have the will or the capabilities to engage with the massive Turkish army. I want us to be, for national and security reasons. But also for diplomatic reasons, since power is what drives diplomacy. But, and it's a same, we are not. Wishfull thinking and believing won't cut it, only a serious army building will cut it. And heroic acts like the 300, simply are very difficult to be repeated.

In 1974 (Attila I), when we had an absolutely vital reason to fight, the greek sintagma in CY (with the ethnofroura) faught bravely, but it was ultimately overrun, and the rest of the army did not engage.

In Attila II, Karamanlis (and the Chiefs of Stuff - Arapakis, klp) made all arrangements for the Greek army NOT to be sent in CY.

In the openning of the CY folder, in 1986 (by PASOK), in the Committee in which Karamanlis did NOT come to testify, he said in a letter he sent them, that:

The army, according to the Chiefs, was not in good shape to fight, and even if we did, it would be pointless. Karamanlis played along, not only he kept the Junta officers in stuff (Arapakis, etc), but he also never asked why, etc.

So, the army was either ready/capable or not, right? Either way, that proves exactly my point that there was neither the will not the capability. And things haven't changed much since then, haven't they?

We still have the same (on the pay-roll of the Americans) politicians, and we haven't significantly improved our army (in comparison to the Turks, at least).

Prometheus said...


the significance of the point i am making is this:

Makarios, other things was saying in public, and other things was signing.

I have no doubt, the quotes you gave are true. But, the way you are "lining" your argument is weak, because:

Defending Makarios on what he said, (or on what you think he intended to do), and not what he ACTUALLY did, it is the same thing a saying (defending) that the Americans went to Iraq to spread democracy (because they kept saying it) and not for oils, etc.

So, what i am saying is this:

You can provide as many quotes of M's as you want, that he wanted enosis, etc, and that might even be true. But, what he DID (signing independence) was something against enosis, since the Z-L deal prevented that (and he knew it).

In simple words, if i go by what the man said, and what he did, then the weight and significance of what he did (that one thing, the Z-L), outweight what he said (the many, about union) on the issue of enosis.

You know, on the 3rd of Aug. 1974,
after Attila I, Karamanlis requested for a "merarxia" to be prepared to be sent to CY, within 4days. The generals delayed to get back at him, until the 14th when the Turks actually bombed with Attila II, and he never asked them "why" the delay, what happened, etc. On the 14th, the generals (same ones as in Junta !!) told him even if we attack back, we won't make any difference, our army is not that prepared, etc, and he just went along with it, and no one was held responsible, etc. It's also true, that his circumnstances were difficult (after the Junta fall, he just came back, etc), but it doesn't matter, does it? He was the one responsible, and he made the choice.

So, under your line of reasoning, you should excuse Karamanlis for his intention, words, difficult circumnstances, etc, and forget what he did. But, clearly, you don't, as you (rightfull) critisism of Karamanlis was posted elsewhere. So, why then, excuse Makarios?

The claim that M's signed independence, because it was the best alternative at that moment (as an unfair division was imminent, etc) is a claim worth examining. But, the claim that he signed independence, so to achieve union (even though union was out of the window IN the documents he was singing), is a bogus claim.

The dirty role of the Americans and the Brits [who, the latter, once again wanted independence in 74, not division] is more than clear. But, at some point we need to accept our responsibilities too, and mistakes, and learn and move on.

The negotiations for a solution, from the begining, until now, are pointless. There is the ones who won, and the ones who lost. And the ones who won (or can win), do not negotiate with the losers. Hanen't we learned that from Thoukidides yet? [but maybe that's the problem, we know nothing about our ancient greek ancestors. But we only "know" about Byzantine megalo-ideat, mega-nonsense, on re-capturing back a non-greek church in Con/ple]

Prometheus said...

Also, you said:

"Zurich and London were secretly negotiated between Greece, Turkey and the UK – with no Cypriot input"

Exactly...that's why Makarios (the Cypriot) should have never signed them. And when he sgned them, he also had no Cypriot input.

Also, since you like to quote M's so much, listen to this:

"The Greeks have captured Cyprus, and they are more dangerous than the Turks. The fights in the island are continuing unreduced. In the hospitals wounded people are being carried non-stop. There are tanks in the streets. This act has canceled the independence of Cyprus. Today, the T/C community is also in danger"

[July 18th, 1974, UN address, after the coup]

Does this sound like someone who (in praxis) cared more for union or independence?

john akritas said...

I just don't accept that Makarios ever did anything that harmed or permanently precluded enosis – as long as it was enosis of the whole of Cyprus with Greece.

The accusation that Makarios betrayed enosis, first by signing London-Zurich and then by rejecting Acheson, is the accusation levelled against him by Grivas and EOKA B. I don't regard Grivas or EOKA B as good or reasonable critics of Makarios or the policy he followed – which should be stressed was not his personal policy, but a policy supported by 95 per cent of Cypriots and the majority of those who fought and supported EOKA.

More on independence: independence had been something Greece had been putting to Makarios since 1957 and Makarios had accepted by late 1958 as an alternative to British threats to impose a solution that would have divided the island between Greece, Turkey and Britain. As I've stated before, independence leading to union was the path followed by Crete – and by Samos too, if I'm not mistaken – so there was historical precedence for considering the option, even if Makarios signed the independence treaties with extreme reluctance and under intense pressure from Karamanlis and Averoff. Not to have signed the treaties would have meant 1. Britain would have gone ahead with its plan to partition the island; and 2. Cyprus would have been carrying on a struggle for union with Greece, when Greece itself had said it did not support that union.

As for Makarios' UN speech: Makarios knew perfectly well that the junta's aim was not enosis but double enosis/partition and that even this was likely to fail because Turkey would rather invade and dictate the terms of partition than accept terms imposed by Greece. What else could Makarios do but stress the legitimacy of the Republic of Cyprus? Indeed, our entire defence since 1974 has been to stress the legitimacy of the Republic of Cyprus.

Anonymous said...

Prometheus, finally some one is making sens here. I appreciate and respect your thoughts and the facts you’re pointing out. It’s intelligent and accurate to my understanding. Good job.

I haven’t come across any politician which doesn’t lie or misleads. I feel their all the same, from A – Z. It doesn’t matter what ever nation or religion.

I like to ask a simple question regarding Makarios. How can a religious man become a political leader to rule Cypriots?

lastgreek said...

[Warning: Reading this post may cause a significant enlargement of the testicles, a condition known as Hezbollah Fighter Syndrome (formerly known as Spartan Syndrome). The only known cure is cowardice in the face of the enemy. Please consult your physician before reading. ]

Prometheus said,

LastGreek, the upper estimate for Hezbollah numbers is 10,000 men
(almost equal to our army in CY), others say 5,000, and others put that to 500. No one really knows.

But, i will play along, and accept with you that they are just "a few" of them.

I wasn’t “playing,” P. The number of Hezbollah fighters by most optimistic accounts was roughly around two thousand men. Moreover, the Hezbollah fighters that met head-on the Zionist army were between 18 and 25-years-old, with no previous battle experience. You read correctly: NO BATTLE EXPERIENCE. That’s because the experienced Hezbollah fighters were based south of the Litani river where they were planning to make their last stand.

Even if they are few of them (like EOKA), the point is that they are highly motivated, and you said, and i agree, they are defending themselves.

That’s right. The Hezbollah fighters were “highly motivated” because they were defending their land from foreign invaders and occupiers. If I am not mistaken, northern Cyprus is under military occupation by Mongol invaders. Is that not motivation enough for the Cypriot men to fight gallantly to free the northern half from Mongol occupation??? Because if that is not motivation enough, then I don’t know what is.

To be continued...

lastgreek said...

Prometheus said,

But. let's not be disillusioned. In the recent conflict, unfortunately they "achieved" a total disaster for Lebanon, and almost no casualties for Israel. Did they earn our sympathies? Yes. Who gained out of this? The Israelis. Also, do you really think that in a full out war the Israelis will need more than a few hours to take over all Lebanon?

I am not disillusioned. P. The people (i.e., Hezbollah) of southern Lebanon chose to stand and fight at any cost for their freedoms and lands rather than to shamefully bow their heads like dogs to the foreign invaders. Yes, the Zionist air force bombed the shit out of Lebanon (shamefully, mostly civilian targets), but the Lebanese people can always rebuild. Try rebuilding on land that is stolen from you!

Not true at all that Hezbollah “achieved a total disaster for Lebanon.” Besides retaining their freedom (I say to you Greeks: Is there a greater calamity for a man than to lose his freedom?), Hezbollah weakened considerably Israel’s deterrence capacity. That, P, is what Israel lost---its deterrence capacity. Why do you think Israel went out of its way to kill and maim thousands of Palestinians in Gaza last year? It was to regain its deterrence capacity, that is, its ability to keep the Arabs in the region stupid, fearful, and in their cage. It failed miserably. The Palestinians even against extraordinary odds refused to surrender. They, too, like Hezbollah, chose Freedom or Death as their motto (correct me if I am wrong, but wasn’t that the Greek motto of the Greek War of Independence???).

Nevertheless, Hezbollah is highly motivated. Is our army (Greek + Cypriot) (or people) highly motivated? If the Turks attack, our army might get motivated, but for what you intend it, to re-gain back CY, i don't think they are.

Again, I assure you, P, that I am not disillusioned to believe that the Cypriot army can just march into occupied northern Cyprus in a willy-nilly fashion and recapture the STOLEN LANDS. No, of course not. I do, however, vehemently believe that WITH PROPER PREPARATION, ORGANIZATION, COURAGE (i.e., BIG BALLS), and DISCIPLINE the Cypriot army can drive the Mongol invader and occupier into the Mediterranean Sea.

You are daydreaming, if you hink that we have the will or the capabilities to engage with the massive Turkish army. I want us to be, for national and security reasons. But also for diplomatic reasons, since power is what drives diplomacy. But, and it's a same, we are not. Wishfull thinking and believing won't cut it, only a serious army building will cut it.

I am not daydreaming. One more time: WITH PROPER PREPARATION, ORGANIZATION, COURAGE (i.e., BIG BALLS), and DISCIPLINE the Cypriot army can drive the Mongol invader and occupier into the Mediterranean Sea.

“Massive Turkish army”? Boo-hoo! I am scared! Come on, P, we’re all going to die one day. Do you want to die on the battlefield defending your freedom or do you want to die in some old folks home?

And heroic acts like the 300, simply are very difficult to be repeated.

Go tell that to the Hezbollah fighters---if you dare!

In 1974 (Attila I), when we had an absolutely vital reason to fight, the greek sintagma in CY (with the ethnofroura) faught bravely, but it was ultimately overrun, and the rest of the army did not engage….

We still have the same (on the pay-roll of the Americans) politicians, and we haven't significantly improved our army (in comparison to the Turks, at least).

Prometheus, if it will make you feel any better, put me down for 10 Mongol heads.

Ζεὺς σωτὴρ καὶ νίκη.



lastgreek said...

To those who want to negotiate---Ha! as if there will ever be fair negotiations---the fate of Cyprus, I have this question to ask:

Which Greek towns or villages in Mongol-occupied Cyprus are we going to sacrifice to the Mongols?

Anonymous said...

We all need another lunatic like Last Greek, I think he watches too many RAMBO movies and Simpsons... Duhhh…

lastgreek said...

Why am I a lunatic? Be specific, please.

And please tell the readers here which Greek towns or villages in occupied Cyprus you'd like to have sacrificed. When you answer this question than I'll take a buffoonish coward like you seriously.

FYI, I don't watch much American TV. Sorry to disappoint.

lastgreek said...

Anonymous Turk/Mongol, don't tire your paws---there is no need to answer. I know it's you.

Duh! indeed. LOL

lastgreek said...


During the Spanish Civil War (1936-1939) there was a brave woman named Delores "La Pasionaria" Ibarruri. She said the following famous words:

"It is better to die on your feet than to walk crawling on your knees"

(quote taken via

Greeks, stand tall in the face of Mongol intimidation and intransigence.

Prometheus said...


first i would like to thank you for the great, and civilized, exchange we had. I will comend briefly on your last points, and i would be ok if you had the last word on this, if you wanted, so we could move on and discuss other issues.

I don't know Grivas critique, this is my critique, and i don't particularly care for him. I applaude the first half of his activity, but deplore the second half. Makarios did good and bads too.

You said:

"not his [Makarios] personal policy, but a policy supported by 95 per cent of Cypriots"

The 95% referendum was for union, i am not aware of any referendum for independence. Who did he ask for independence? So, the singing of the Z-L was his personal preference. Not nessesarily his preferable, perhaps, nevertheless he signed it.

You said:

"independence leading to union was the path followed by Crete – and by Samos too"

True, but them in the independence "documents" they didn't have a clause that said NO UNION WITH GREECE. Do you think Crete would have accepted anything like that? If one of their leaders singed such a thing, i believe they would have executed him.

It's true what you said, that "Turkey would rather invade and dictate the terms of partition", but that was after. In 1974. Before, we missed much more beneficial to us opportunities, and that's what i was pointing out.

You are also right when you say:

"our entire defence since 1974 has been to stress the legitimacy of the Republic of Cyprus."

Yea, that's the only thing for us to do, and justifibly we are doing it. But, it is also more of a predicament we put our selves into, and far from what we initially wanted.

No matter what the solution would be, it would never be one Cyprus belonging to Greek Cypriots, as many daydreamers think. Unless if the solution is war, and we win it, etc...At most, we will get to go back back to the Z-L terms. At most.

I would like to close with a positive spin, though: The only advantage i see, now that we are independent, is that now we get to have 2 votes in the EU, as Greeks, and that might prove to be useful at some point.

Thanks again....

Prometheus said...

Dear LastGreek,

you said a lot, so i will try to answer to as many issues you raised as i can.

I admire Hesbolah fighters courage, like you do. But, let's not ignore that Hesbolah is more of a "card" that the Israelis are using when most convinient, rather than an actual military threat to them.

You said:

"Is that [occupation] not motivation enough for the Cypriot men to fight gallantly to free the northern half from Mongol occupation???"

Sorry to disappoint you. NO, it's not. [and it saddens me]. If it was, they would have doing something about it. Do they? The FACTS show that the occupation is NOT a motivating factor. Neither we have policies, or strategies, of recovering back anything, Even the ENIAIO AMYNTIKO DOGMA, started by Papandreou, was for the protection of Gr and Cy, and our defense, on what we already have. Not for any recovery of lands we lost, like Smyrna, W. Thrace, or Cyprus.

You said:

"[Lebanese] chose to stand and fight at any cost for their freedoms and lands rather than to shamefully bow their heads"

True, but that's something (to fight) we don't choose now, good or bad. We prefer "negotiations", which is almost like bowing our heads, as the terms get worse every other time. To negotiate with your oppressor, is humiliating already. We are not quite the Palestinians, are we? What it should be is, we go for ONE "give and take", with the UN or Americans (whoever can impose it, probably Americans), on giving us Famagusta and we recognise their independence. And then, build a really tall wall, 10 feet high, to separate us, so they do whatever they want there, and we here.

Right, the Greek motto of the Greek War of Independence (the one that the Church CONDEMNED, by the way) was FREEDOM OR DEATH. The problem is that Cypriots don't feel that are under slavery now, or occupation, etc. [Sadly enough]. Just look at them, they live their lives, they go over to the T/C casinos and give them their money, etc.

Of course with "PROPER PREPARATION, ORGANIZATION, COURAGE and DISCIPLINE the Cypriot [and Greek] army" can achieve many things. The problem is that that requires patriots, to make it happen. We don't have to many of those. Also, not to put all the blame on them, it also requires the big powers to let you do it.
In the 80's, the greek goverment orders Mirage airplanes, and half are broken, and greek politicians pocket a big chunk of that money. We ordered the S-300, we never managed to get them. Where did that money go? Many of our 18-year old guys who join the army in Cy, they declare crazy, gay, etc, to avoid it. Others, make "phone calls" to come close to their mommies, or get favored, etc. There is no stratiotiki paideia. They join it, because they have to, not because they serve their country. That's sad, but, the irony is that they might be right !! Since, when they join that army, that army has nothing to offer them, nothing to teach them, so it wastes their time.

When i said, "the heroic acts like the 300, simply are very difficult to be repeated.”, you responded by:

"Go tell that to the Hezbollah fighters---if you dare! "

If you are putting the H's fighters in the same category as the 300 Spartans, then you must be crazy... :) We are friends, but you are crazy !! So, I won't even dignify that with an analysis. And,
i will more than dare tell the H fighters: YOU ARE NOT THE SPARTANS. They will probably say, "who said we are?".

[By the way, did you see that show where they compare a Spartan vs Ninja, or a Samurai vs a Viking, etc? Pretty cool...the Spartan won !!]

Prometheus said...


mottos and "sinthimata" like:

"It is better to die on your feet than to walk crawling on your knees"

are all nice, until someone puts a gun on your head. No, seriously now: Would you really crawl or die, if i put a gun on your head? What would you REALLY do?

O course, i am taking you off context here, and i do know what you mean. So, is the North territory of Cyprus worth dying for? YES. Are most Cypriots willing to die for it? NO. And that's a problem my friend...


lastgreek said...


Greek Cypriots have the right to decide for themselves what they want to do. If they choose "negotations," so be it. I respect their choice even if I think it's wrong. Hey, I know... life is great---even for cowards. But I also respect those courageous Greek Cypriots who choose to fight for their land, P, because when you lose your land, you got nothing! Nada!

I talk the talk, and yes... I god damn walk the walk: I'd rather die on my feet than live on my knees. Yup, that's me, P, a "lunatic" Greek, as my Anonymous Turk (Μογγολικὸ παπάρι) would say.

Oh, I almost forgot... indeed I compared the Hezbollah fighters to the Spartans. They did not cower in the line of duty: they stood their ground and fought to the death, like Spartans. And, btw, unlike the Israelis, the Persians never had cluster bombs. Nasty stuff 'dem cluster bombs. So I guess next to "lunatic," you might as well add "crazy." ;)

Take care, P, and thank you for your analysis. Unfortunately, a lot of what you said above is sadly true.


P.S. Anonymous Turk, how many Turks does it take to make Turkish coffee?

Anonymous said...

I am not a Turk and neither a Mongol. I am not sure what you’re on about but it sounds like whole lot of crock... Listen and learn from people who are more qualified than your petty thoughts. I can only offer you the wise words of William Shakespeare. “I did never know so full a voice issue from so empty a heart and mined: but the saying is true 'The empty vessel makes the greatest sound'.

Have great life. You might grow up some day.

john akritas said...

P. The 95% I was thinking of wasn't the 1950 referendum on enosis; but the 1968 presidential election on the island, when Makarios received 96% of the vote and the 'enosis now' candidate Takis Evdokas, 4%.

On a couple of other points: I don't like this argument that because we're not lobbing RPGs Hezbollah-style at the Turks, there is no resistance to the Turkish occupation. Resistance takes many forms. And even if it is painful when our people cross over to the occupied areas for casinos and so on, or some of the refugees go cap in hand to the occupation regime's bogus Compensation Committee or some kids try and get out of national service, let's not exaggerate the numbers or draw nihilistic conclusions. They are a very small minority, and in any national struggle there will always be traitors, cowards, people who don't care or are motivated by money.

As for a military campaign against the occupation: well, obviously Cypriots couldn't take on Turkey in a pitched battle and drive them off the island; so we're talking guerrilla tactics, involving either crossing over into the occupied areas and assassinating Turk soldiers, settlers, blowing up installations and so on. This would, of course invite severe retaliation from Turkey and turn Cyprus into Gaza. Alternatively, we could adopt the ASALA tactics of hitting Turkish interests and personnel abroad. But what would this achieve, other than satisfy a thirst for revenge?

On Hezbollah: I'm not too sure what it's done to deserve all this praise or why we should seek to emulate its tactics or spirit. (Next, we'll be praising the Taliban). Since the Israelis went in to southern Lebanon three years ago to hit Hezbollah, we haven't heard much from Hezbollah, because the last thing it wants or needs is another battering from Israeli artillery or air strikes. And please let's not compare Hezbollah to the Spartans. This is an insult to the Spartans. And what characterised the Spartans wasn't their balls and the size of them – all Greek cities and kingdoms could boast of warriors with big balls – but their singular dedication to their balls and the status they attached to having big balls. Having said that, in military matters the Spartans were probably consistently the meanest and most efficient Greek warriors, but they were also the most cautious. The Spartans were not gung-ho. In many respects, they were reluctant to fight and only did so after careful consideration. Thucydides even accuses the Spartans of lacking daring (atolmoi).

lastgreek said...


Please, keep your boring Shakespeare to yourself. I'll stick with the greatest poet of all, Homer.


When I get a chance this evening, I'd like to discuss some points you've made above. Thanks.

Anonymous said...

Question to Prometheus and John Akritas, What is fair solution for our much loved Cyprus?

john akritas said...

The basis should be: all refugees back to their homes; all Turkish settlers out; all Turkish soldiers withdrawn. After that, any democratic constitutional arrangement is possible.

lastgreek said...

Hi, J.

Before I comment on some of your points above, I would like to say a few words.

Why is it that EU countries like perfidious “Great” Britain can enjoy the democratic principle of “one person, one vote;” France can enjoy the democratic principle of “one person, one vote;” all other EU and non EU countries like the United States can enjoy this bedrock of democracy, including the Mongols of Turkey, but NOT the Republic of Cyprus? They can’t. Why? Because the treacherous British pricks and Mongols say so. Cyprus---the only true democracy in the Middle East! (I don’t know who I hate more, the British or the Mongols?)

Now, let’s imagine the reaction of the Mongols of Turkey if they were told that their 18% Kurdish minority would have more rights than they would, and that this aforementioned minority would control at least 40% of the country---in perpetuity!!!---and also have a say in political matters in the rest of the country, as Marcus Templar so astutely noted in an essay that was posted in the excellent Antipodes blog. ( Would the Mongols agree to such a plan? I think we all know the answer to that one. Oh, and one more small detail I forgot to mention (silly lastgreek): The old official name of the country, Republic of Turkey, would have to be changed to accommodate both the minority group and the majority group. Why? Because the 18% minority goupr said so, that’s why!

Ah, the Kurdish minority. The Mongols in the 1990s tried to outperform Saddam Hussein’s atrocities (1986-1989) against the Kurds by killing and maiming tens of thousands of Kurds, displacing millions , all in the process of destroying thousands of Kurdish towns and villages in southeastern Turkey. When the Mongols were carrying out these crimes, the then US president Bill Clinton, in some speech he was giving, described Turkey as “a beacon of democracy in the region.” Go figure.

J said,

On a couple of other points: I don't like this argument that because we're not lobbing RPGs Hezbollah-style at the Turks, there is no resistance to the Turkish occupation. Resistance takes many forms.

I agree that resistance takes many forms. I don’t understand what you mean by “lobbing RPGs Hezbollah-style at the Turks,” though.

And even if it is painful when our people cross over to the occupied areas for casinos and so on, …

These idiotic, half-wit Greeks who cross over into Mongol-occupied Cyprus, which in effect boosts the coffers of the Mongol occupation regime, should not be allowed re-entry into Free Cyprus. Yes, by jove! I think that would work. (Who/what the heck is “jove”? ;))

As for a military campaign against the occupation: well, obviously Cypriots couldn't take on Turkey in a pitched battle and drive them off the island; so we're talking guerrilla tactics, involving either crossing over into the occupied areas and assassinating Turk soldiers, settlers, blowing up installations and so on. This would, of course invite severe retaliation from Turkey and turn Cyprus into Gaza.

I have repeatedly said in this blog that our Greek armed forces, both in Greece and in Cyprus, should be well prepared and well organized for any possible contingency from the Mongol, including war. The first principle when you militarily engage your enemy is to respect your enemy---be he Mongol or not! That is all I have said. We all know very well that the Mongol’s intentional violations of Greek air space and other provocative acts are to provoke our armed forces.

Alternatively, we could adopt the ASALA tactics of hitting Turkish interests and personnel abroad. But what would this achieve, other than satisfy a thirst for revenge?

Don’t the Mongols wish. This would not only be criminal but absurd, as well, as you already know, J. It would also earn us the enmity of the world. We are not Mongols. We are civilized.

To be continued...

lastgreek said...

J said,

On Hezbollah: I'm not too sure what it's done to deserve all this praise or why we should seek to emulate its tactics or spirit.

Well, J, Hezbollah has this bloody tendency of humiliating the mighty Israeli army. The praise of their brave fighters is highly deserved. I never said anything about emulating their tactics.

Since the Israelis went in to southern Lebanon three years ago to hit Hezbollah, we haven't heard much from Hezbollah, because the last thing it wants or needs is another battering from Israeli artillery or air strikes

The Israeli ground troops (if that is what you mean by going in) never went into southern Lebanon, not for long anyway. Not for long because they cowered as soon as they met Hezbollah resistance.

No, “we haven’t heard much from Hezbollah,” vis-à-vis Israel. But why should we? They want to be left alone. They have no desire---and never had, btw---to invade Israel and steal their land. Their raison-d’être is to defend their land from foreign occupiers, something we Greeks can relate to very well. You know, when the Israelis occupied more than 10% of southern Lebanon, up until 2000 when Hezbollah kicked them out, they would send in these giant Caterpillar diggers to scoop up the rich agricultural topsoil and cart it back over the border to Israel. The thieves also stole water by extending pipelines from Israel all the way into southern Lebanon’s rivers. And Israel boasts that it has made the desert bloom. What Chutzpah! Thieves!

Regarding the cowardly Israeli artillery and air strikes (including the dropping of millions of cluster bomblets after the ceasefire agreement was signed and which was to take effect in a couple of days), when the sophisticated Israeli air force, with its supped-up, American-made fighter jets, could not destroy Hezbollah’s munitions, nor its leadership, nor Hezbollah’s will to fight, the cowards started to bomb civilian targets at will. The world lost count of all the Israeli war crimes.

And please let's not compare Hezbollah to the Spartans. This is an insult to the Spartans.

I compared the Hezbollah fighter’s courage and discipline and nothing more, J. I couldn’t care less about Hezbollah’s politics nor its shitty religion. I do admire their brave fighters, though, and I believe the comparison was apt.

As for insulting the Spartans, sometimes, J, and with all due respect, I feel we modern Greeks are an insult to our ancestors, especially the Spartans.

And what characterised the Spartans wasn't their balls and the size of them – all Greek cities and kingdoms could boast of warriors with big balls – but their singular dedication to their balls and the status they attached to having big balls.

Ok, I admit… I got a bit carried away with the “big balls” analogy. ;)

Having said that, in military matters the Spartans were probably consistently the meanest and most efficient Greek warriors, but they were also the most cautious. The Spartans were not gung-ho. In many respects, they were reluctant to fight and only did so after careful consideration. Thucydides even accuses the Spartans of lacking daring (atolmoi).

I was not talking about "gung-ho, “ J. The people of southern Lebanon had fought a 20-year campaign to remove the Israeli occupiers from their land. In 2006 they refused to allow the Israelis to usurp them once again. They fought bravely one of the most heavily-armed, most sophisticated armies in the world---and won.

I will also close with Thucydides:

No peace without justice, no justice without truth.

I hope the Greek-Cypriot negotiators remember Thucydides’ poignant words when they sit down with their Mongol counterparts.



P.S. J, I know that I sometimes come across harsh and abrasive. I don’t want to sugarcoat things. I truly care for the fate of Cyprus. For me, a good Mongol occupation soldier is a dead one.

Prometheus said...


I stated my proposal for a fair solution to the Cyprus issue, in a post above. I will repeat it briefly here.

First, though, let me point out that John's solution sounds good, but it doesn't address the more complex issue, on what to do with the T/C's. And that's were, i think, we disagreed in the past.

I proposed the following:

The Turks give back (at least) Famagousta, so that the percentage of land becomes a bit more fair to us, and we regognize independence for the North part (or union with Turkey, etc...we don't care). That way, we preserve the national identity, and autonomy, of the southern (most) part as GREEK, without having to deal with minorities that don't want to play the role of a minority, but instead they think they should rule, etc. [On the other hand, that minority should live somewhere, right? We can't pretend they don't exist]

That's the basis of my plan, not the most ideal (none is), but i think is the most realistic and fair. Also, it's what politicians do NOT want to hear, as it will solve the problem, i believe, and that's something most of them don't want, as they will lose their "careers", etc.

Prometheus said...


i tottally agree with you, on the point you made:

"As for insulting the Spartans, sometimes...I feel we modern Greeks are an insult to our ancestors, especially the Spartans."

I critisized your Hezbolah/Spartans comparison, but it's true that Hezbolah comes much nearer to the Spartans than the confused modern Greek orthodox humanoid.

And, we all know (hopefully) who/what was responsible for that historical distortion and national corruption, do we?

Anonymous said...

All that we are is the result of what we have thought. If a man speaks or acts with an evil thought, pain follows him. If a man speaks or acts with a pure thought, happiness follows him, like a shadow that never leaves him.